VT Killer "legally" purchased pistols? Maybe not...


PDA






FW
April 19, 2007, 03:47 AM
Perhaps I've interpreted this wrong, but I haven't noticed anyone else question it yet.

All the news sources have claimed Seung-Hui Cho "legally" purchase firearms. Of course this is also being used as reasoning to call more restrictions.

According to ABC news http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3052278&page=1

A court found that Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was "mentally ill" and potentially dangerous.

It seems ATF form 4473 question 12f might possibly have made his purchase not legal, although it could be questionable.

Any thoughts on this?

If you enjoyed reading about "VT Killer "legally" purchased pistols? Maybe not..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
average_shooter
April 19, 2007, 03:50 AM
In one of the interviews I saw with the shop owner this issue was brought up. Essentially the shop owner said Cho lied on the form and it was up to the FBI and state agencies to deny the sale, the shop had none of that information, just a proceed or deny from the NICS.

He, the shop owner, went on to state, or ask, Cho broke how many laws? And we already have over 20,000 gun laws on the books, what good would one more do when this guy was intent on comitting murder?

Rem700SD
April 19, 2007, 04:04 AM
From what I've read, and this is splitting hairs, is that he was under a court order to see a psychiatrist. He was not declared legally incompetent that I've read, and he was not ADMITTED to the facility. He underwent OUTPATIENT treatment.
I believe the specific disqualifier is being involuntarilly admitted (court order) to a psychiatric facility. ( I don't have a yellow sheet in front of me.)

So while in the spirit of the law he should not have been anywhere outside of a rubber room, technically he was still eligible for purchase.

The rumoured arson case should have been a disqualifier if it was prosecuted properly, as well.

Dan

Rob G
April 19, 2007, 05:10 AM
From what I've heard it looks like this guy had a history of mental illness, stalking, and several other things that should have disqualified him from purchasing a gun. Unfortunately these things were never properly reported and handled in a way that would have created the necessary records to flag a background check. Basically the same type of people who hate guns and wanted these laws then failed to report someone who clearly shouldn't have owned one (probably because they were trying to be "gently" and "understanding" with him) thereby negating the laws and making it possible for him to still buy one. :banghead:

Caimlas
April 19, 2007, 06:05 AM
In one of the interviews I saw with the shop owner this issue was brought up. Essentially the shop owner said Cho lied on the form and it was up to the FBI and state agencies to deny the sale, the shop had none of that information, just a proceed or deny from the NICS.

Wow. Just wow. The level of incompetence at every single level throughout this affair is astounding. No, it's magnificent. No... I lack sufficiently succinct verbiage of a non-colorful nature to describe this. The FBI, ATF, local LEOs, campus security, news organizations, faculty and students, the school president and his office - and on down the line - screwed the pooch. It's almost like everyone involved was willfully making the wrong decision every time something was presented to them. Either that, or Cho played th system like a pro for optimal affect. The whole system was set up for failure, at almost every level but the state (legislation allowing firearms, which were then forbidden by the campus).

As for the NICS check? I wouldn't be surprised if they did it willfully, knowing a bit about how the ATF operates. Let one slip through the cracks, just so the antis can say, "look, see! the system is broken! we need more control!"

And what was with the serial number on hsi glock supposedly getting filed off? Why would he do that, particularly if he's going to off himself? It makes no damn sense!

I kind of ramble on about this a bit here: There's something suspicious about the shooting events at Virginia Tech (http://blog.boiledfrog.us/archives/82-Theres-something-suspicious-about-the-shooting-events-at-Virginia-Tech.html)

Bubbles
April 19, 2007, 09:46 AM
In Virginia you are DQ's from purchasing a handgun if you have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. This is a court hearing w/ a judge, attorney for the Commonwealth, and defense attorney for the person being committed. It has a fairly high standard of evidence. These proceedings are available to VCIN/NICS.

Cho's case was a bit different. According to news reports he voluntarily elected to seek treatment. What can happen is that in cases where someone hasn't committed a felony but a friend or family member is worried, the person can go before a judge and a case made. The person has the option - voluntarily commit yourself, or the judge/court will do it for you (involuntary commitment). Cho also wasn't committed, he was "temporarily held for observation", which also isn't a DQ'ing event.

There was a bill introduced in the VA legislature a few years back that would have DQ's anyone admitted voluntarily from purchasing a firearm. A lot of mental health professionals spoke out against it b/c they were worried that people would not seek treatment for problems if they thought that they would lose their rights because of it. The bill died in committee.

halvey
April 19, 2007, 09:55 AM
As for the NICS check? I wouldn't be surprised if they did it willfully, knowing a bit about how the ATF operates. Let one slip through the cracks, just so the antis can say, "look, see! the system is broken! we need more control!"
I highly doubt that.

Your tinfoil hat isn't helping much is it?

John Hicks
April 19, 2007, 09:58 AM
I hate to say it, but I'd be a big fan of tightening this part of the law.

Any court-ordered therapy is a disqualifier. Just like any court-ordered anti-stalking (i.e. restraining order) is a disqualifier.

It would have to come with some sort of framework for reinstatement (or sunset) of the red flag. This would be to prevent someone with a curable illness (like severe depression) from having their rights permanently taken away.

Still processing the ideas in my head. Once I come up with one that sticks . . .

jh

ElZorro
April 19, 2007, 10:03 AM
I'd sure like to get his take on this thing. He's generally right on top of this sort of thing; or anything to do with RKBA.

ElZorro

Regen
April 19, 2007, 10:12 AM
Bubbles -

If his trip to the hospital was voluntarily, why was there a court proceeding? If you go to a hospital emergency room and tell them that you are depressed and fell you are a danger to yourself or others, they are going to hold you for observation in a pysch ward. No need to go to a judge. The judge getting involved indicates that someone thought he was a danger to himself and/or others. If he was in the hospital already for observation, they could have kept him for a short period of time without involving the courts. (In NY I think it is 72 hours, I don't know about VA)

Risasi
April 19, 2007, 10:16 AM
Caimlas,

I do believe in MK Ultra, the orchestration of events by our governement, and other .gov's. To further solidify their strength, and weaken the rights of the common people.

However I think you identified the key points. Gross incompetence, and lack of enforcement of current laws. And I am a very firm believer in lack of diligence, and general sloth and laziness, by government and non-government alike.

Now could "they" have known ahead of time this kid was going to snap? Sure, perhaps "they" did. But I do not believe there was some vast right/left wing conspiracy to pass more gun laws. More likely though, other than a few teachers nobody gave a rip about doing their jobs. Or their hands were tied by other stupid laws, that prevented them from getting this guy off of the street.

Just FYI; As it stands right now at the federal level they could declare some national emergency, call FEMA in, kick in martial law. They have internment camps, they could lock down travel. They could force a national ID on the populace. They could disarm the populace. All these contingencies have already been prepared ahead of time. They don't do it because it would be a HUGE logistics problem. They CAN'T do it right now. We are unmanageable. We are not yet sheepish enough. So those who would rule over us do not push that agenda at this time. Rather they chip away here and there at the rights of the common man. You would do well to focus on those issues instead.

Onmilo
April 19, 2007, 10:18 AM
In the State of Illinois if you are going through a divorce and your spouce's attorney files an order of protection against you, and most do as a matter of course AND they don't have to tell you the order of protection has been filed, You cannot buy a gun because the O.O.P. will show up when the background check is called in and you will be denied.

After the divorce is settled the O.O.P.s are removed but you must go to the courthouse and file documents showing that to be true before the refusal is rebuked and you are legally allowed to purchase again.

The shop I work for has had several denials for just this reason.

If any Laws were broken during the transaction they were broken by the perpetrator for not answering the question on the Form 4473 truthfully.

mbt2001
April 19, 2007, 10:25 AM
I dunno... This whole "stalking" case that they are bringing up... He sent some text messages and went to see girls he chatted with. No, I don't know if that is "stalking", but it certainly doesn't seem like that those girls were in any real danger or that there was anything really untoward going on.

I mean, pointing at stuff in hindsight is always a mistake. There is a tendancy to try to build profiles, and strategies based around the wrong things and ignore the real lessons.

Obviously, they should have locked down the campus after the first shooting. Further to that, if they are banning guns from college, they need to ensure that guns are not getting into the school OR they need to let students and professors be allowed to carry. It is that simple.

I haven't heard anyone speak about how VT dropped the ball on ensuring that there were not guns on campus.

Harry Tuttle
April 19, 2007, 10:32 AM
According to his english professor, he was taking pictures of girls in his classes from under his desk and several refused to attend class after that.

It seems to me he should have been shown some "peer intolerance" behind the woodshed, but no, in this enlightened era, we need to respect other's frailties.

John Hicks
April 19, 2007, 10:34 AM
I haven't heard anyone speak about how VT dropped the ball on ensuring that there were not guns on campus.

Silly. They had a "RULE". And everyone follows the rules, so no need for enforcement. :rolleyes:

It's been beaten to death, but this really is an example of why laws don't stop criminals. If they want to do it, it's gonna happen.

jh

Lobotomy Boy
April 19, 2007, 10:50 AM
It seems plausible that someone at some point could have had legitimate reasons to obtain a restraining order against Cho. Had that happened, the current system might have been effective in denying him access to guns.

That brings up the possibility of obtaining guns illegally. I don't have a clue about how this is done, since I have no problem obtaining guns legally, but from what I've seen here in the Minneapolis metro area, it seems to be a fairly easy process. At least it seems to be an easy process for young black males involved in gang culture. It is not so easy for law-abiding citizens without contacts in the criminal community.

So why is it that the anti-gun crowd shrieks like raped peahens for more gun laws at a time like this, laws that only affect law-abiding citizens who, because they abide by the law, are not committing violent crimes, yet they say nothing about the failure to enforce existing laws, such as those intended to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and children?

Kaylee
April 19, 2007, 11:49 AM
I hate to say it, but I'd be a big fan of tightening this part of the law.

Any court-ordered therapy is a disqualifier. Just like any court-ordered anti-stalking (i.e. restraining order) is a disqualifier.

I could maybe agree with that, except for the fact that R.O.s seem to handed out like candy in divorce cases. My father had a boilerplate one slapped on him a couple years back in his divorce, which was kinda wierd given that not only had a cop or judge never even seen him when it was issued, he'd not so much as raised his voice to my mom...

-K

Bubbles
April 19, 2007, 12:11 PM
Bubbles -

If his trip to the hospital was voluntarily, why was there a court proceeding?

I asked this of a friend whose brother had it happen. He had attempted suicide and his family wanted him to attend therapy after he was released from the hospital. He refused; parents sought a court order since the son was 18 at the time. The parents presented their evidence to the judge, and the judge gave the son two choices: voluntarily attend therapy, or the court would order the son to be involuntarily committed. Basically it's a "last chance" for someone to seek help before the Commonwealth takes over.

FWIW the son told the judge to FU and he was involuntarily committed.

From what I understand in the media about Cho's case - and they may have their facts wrong - Cho would have gone through a similar process. If Cho told the judge "no problem, I'll be happy to attend therapy voluntarily" then that would not have been an impediment to him purchasing a firearm under Virginia law.

As has been pointed out, there were plenty of times that Cho could have been flagged in VCIN/NICS. Certainly a RO from one of his stalking victims, or a prosecution for the arson, would have done it.

MD_Willington
April 19, 2007, 12:15 PM
He lied on the 4473

I filled one out last night, it asks if you've been committed to an institution...


Fastest NICS check ever for me to, 5 minutes at the max...

VARifleman
April 19, 2007, 12:31 PM
It doesn't take an involuntary commitment to get denied for reason 4 of the GCA. "Adjudicated mentally defective" which includes when a court determines that you are a danger to yourself and/or others.

Libertylover
April 19, 2007, 01:43 PM
It seems to me he should have been shown some "peer intolerance" behind the woodshed, but no, in this enlightened era, we need to respect other's frailties.


Because, ya know, we've seen that bullying has prevented these things in the past...

Bartholomew Roberts
April 19, 2007, 02:50 PM
According to ABC News:

The evaluation came from a psychiatric hospital near Virginia Tech, where Cho was taken by police in December 2005, after two female schoolmates said they received threatening messages from him, and police and school officials became concerned that he might be suicidal.

After Dr. Crouse's psychological evaluation of Cho, Special Justice Paul M. Barnett certified the finding, ordering followup treatment on an outpatient basis.

On the form, a box is checked, showing that Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."

Immediately below it was another box that is not checked: "Presents an imminent danger to others as a result of mental illness."

If a court found him a danger to himself, that is sufficient to meet the 922(g) prohibitions according to the ATF regs at 27 CFR 178.11.

Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court,
board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result
of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency,
condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include--
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not
guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles
50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a,
876b.

ACP
April 19, 2007, 05:30 PM
University Says It Wasn’t Involved in Gunman’s Treatment

By SHAILA DEWAN and MARC SANTORA

Published: April 19, 2007

BLACKSBURG, Va., April 19 — Virginia Tech officials said today that they played no role in monitoring the psychiatric treatment of Cho Seung-Hui, the student responsible for killing 32 people and himself on Monday, after Mr. Cho had gone to a mental health center in late 2005.

A judge had ordered that Mr. Cho, 23, receive outpatient treatment at the time, but officials said they did not know whether Mr. Cho had received that counseling.

Chris Flynn, director of Virginia Tech’s counseling center, said at a televised news conference today that the hospital did not report to the university when Mr. Cho was released. The court would not have done so, he said, because the required treatment was part of a state judicial proceeding that did not involve the university.

He said the hospital would not have released Mr. Cho if the student was a danger to himself or others.

At a news conference this afternoon, Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia announced that he was creating an independent commission to review the circumstances leading up to the shootings — including the extent of Mr. Cho’s interaction with the mental health system — and that the commission would also examine the university’s handling of events that day.

Governor Kaine said he had appointed Gerald Massengill, the former superintendent of the state police, to head the commission, and that former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge would also be a member.

“While we’re not going out there to second-guess people,” Mr. Massengill said, “we are going out there to find some lessons to learn.”

Zundfolge
April 19, 2007, 05:38 PM
I hate to say it, but I'd be a big fan of tightening this part of the law.

Any court-ordered therapy is a disqualifier.
You really have no idea what that would unleash.

A friend of mine several years ago went through a messy divorce. He never touched his wife or threatened her, but her bottom feeding lawyer got her to claim abuse and get a RO on him to use as leverage in a child custody case.

The judge ordered him to "Anger Management Counseling"... so I guess you think he should never have a gun?


The problem with "court-ordered therapy" is that you just convicted someone with no due process. My friend never stood before the judge that isssued the Anger Management decree (at least not before the time of the order).

And don't think for a minute that we can trust the "mental health professionals" to properly make the call. There are plenty of them that honestly believe the desire to own a firearm equals mental illness.


No sir, the real solution is to throw every stupid gun law out the window ... let the people (law abiding, semi-law abiding, sane, crazy and criminal) arm themselves and the violent criminals will either die or find other lines of work.

NO LAWS will stop crazy people hell bent on murder from killing as many people as they want.

Lobotomy Boy
April 19, 2007, 05:47 PM
There's a lot of truth in what Mr. Zundfolge writes. I've seen legitimate restraining orders, but I've also seen a lot of vindictive ex spouses issue them just to get more leverage in a divorce proceding. Of the situations where I have been close enough to the parties to really know the score, the latter has been the case more often than the former.

This is a very real problem, one without easy, black-and-white answers. Another serious problem is that there seems to be a thriving illegal gun trade, at least in metro areas like the one in which I live. Somehow 15-year-old gang-bangers with serious criminal records seem to have nearly unlimited access to guns. More gun laws aren't the answer, since it is already illegal for such people to own guns. Perhaps enforcing laws prohibiting felons and juveniles from buying guns would help, but to do that we need to understand how they get guns in the first place. I'm pretty darn sure it has nothing to do with Obama and McCain's mythical "gun-show loophole."

We should give such issues serious thought. The better we understand them, the more successful we will be at focusing attention on solutions that work rather than on ever more attacks on the Second Amendment.

RavenVT100
April 19, 2007, 05:53 PM
I hate to say it, but I'd be a big fan of tightening this part of the law.

Any court-ordered therapy is a disqualifier. Just like any court-ordered anti-stalking (i.e. restraining order) is a disqualifier.

Are you advocating this be done in ex post facto fashion similar to the Lautenberg bill?

Caimlas
April 19, 2007, 06:16 PM
I highly doubt that.

Your tinfoil hat isn't helping much is it?

Knock it off, Mr. Ad Hominem.

I said I wouldn't be surprised. I didn't say I believed it.

Someone else has obliged by offering an alternative, superior explanation which takes into account VA state law. That is more than sufficient an explanation for me as to why he was able to pass NICS.

RavenVT100
April 19, 2007, 06:30 PM
As for the NICS check? I wouldn't be surprised if they did it willfully, knowing a bit about how the ATF operates. Let one slip through the cracks, just so the antis can say, "look, see! the system is broken! we need more control!"

Nah. Never ascribe to malice what can be explained through incompetence.

Mods: Thanks for removing the dupes.

RNB65
April 19, 2007, 06:53 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=270774

eliphalet
April 19, 2007, 07:16 PM
Any thoughts on this?

He would have gotten a gun, legal or not, or would have use something else. Let not forget this guy was going to make a horrific statement guns or not.
Comes back to my original argument, that no one was allowed to have a gun where he committed this, so no one could protect themselves or anyone else or try stop it. Except one extremely brave old man that lost his life trying.

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" These people were just that, infringed.

Strings
April 19, 2007, 07:38 PM
*sigh*

Everyone wants to obsess on the tools he used. The truth is, the tools didn't matter.

He could just as easily have taken a pair of machetes into the school, and started swinging: bodycount might not have been as high, but it would've been "spectacular" (which I get the impression he was trying for).

And other students could've done... something. TRY to fight back, somehow...

mountainclmbr
April 19, 2007, 07:45 PM
I also heard he committed arson by setting a dormatory room on fire. That should be a felony if he was charged and convicted.

Im283
April 19, 2007, 07:46 PM
No, I don't know if that is "stalking", but it certainly doesn't seem like that those girls were in any real danger


You are kidding, right?

ElZorro
April 19, 2007, 08:32 PM
VA gun laws.

Twould be futile (if not to them) inasmuch as the Federal checks through which he had to pass are much stricter.

The frenzy of which I speak is the frantic attempt by ALL MSM outlets to outdo each other to come up with a rational explanation for an irrational act.

And the horror of it is, they don't seem to realize that an irrational act, by its nature, defies rational explanation.

The guy was, not to belabor technical terms, a "nutcase". Whether he be certifiably insane and whether or not he was legally forbidden to purchase (I think not, due to laxity on the part of the "officials") and whether he lied on his 4473 (again I think not, due to the above doubts), the guy was definitely "commit the bitch" insane and should have been dealt with.

Although the media have dwelt somewhat on this aspect, they're still going batso trying to explain his madness in rational terms.

"STUFF" happens and the nutcases are everywhere out there and no laws or preventive measures can anticipate or prevent their irrationality.

Witness the half-dozen who have cropped up in just the last two days all over the country, trying to outdo the "VT Massacre".

Will the liberal media never let up or look at their own irrational behavior?

ElZorro

JohnBT
April 19, 2007, 09:41 PM
"the guy was definitely "commit the bitch" insane"

The problem is that it is NOT against the law to be insane. The requirement - the standard - that needs to be met to earn an involuntary commitment is: presents an imminent danger to self or others

It's a high standard to meet. Not 'might be dangerous', not 'sounds like he might be a threat', not 'crazy as a bedbug', not 'that's just nuts', but "presents and imminent danger to self or others."

Imminent - right now.

John

bob40caliber
April 19, 2007, 09:50 PM
Strings
you are correct--the tools do not matter.....
he could have had a higher body count with a gallon of gas and a match.....
anyone remember a guy named Julio Gonzales--- 1990 Bronx,NY social club arson....killed 87....the tools do not matter...only the evil.

Zoogster
April 19, 2007, 10:32 PM
I think people need to step back and think before trying to make a knee jerk solution in an attempt to deflect an attack on your own gun rights.

Restraining orders as someone mentioned are issued all the time by many people in divorces or many types of civil court proceedings for nothing more than to gain leverage when there is no need. In fact they have become a standard for many lawyers.

Mental illness is also up to interpretation. In fact some of the key "warning signs" posted by the news as an indicator is an interest in weapons. SO technicaly we are all already partialy justified to be denied because we are on a gun websight and that alone is a red flag!

Many people are going to feel happy sometimes and sad other times. People are going to have break ups and relationship problems and deaths of family and friends. They are going to be doing well in in thier profession/school sometimes and struggling and maybe depressed about it another.

Drugs are a huge market and doctors are encouraged to prescribe them so anyone that decides to or is ordered to see a therapist would likely be on medication. I remember a study that showed Americans are on more drugs (legal) than most of the rest of the world.

So I guess at some point in most peoples lives they should be flagged as ineligable for firearm possession because a small percentage are unable to cope with the difficulties in life and will lash out against others?

We should complain that the authorities should identify people's mental state to determine thier rights more thoroughly to avoid problems? Of course that will increase the amount of people denied rights.

You can put up large nets and snares for many to catch a few, but many will be caught that are not the next nutjob. It also makes the argument that it is that much more of a privelidge and not a right. Encouraging that mindset with have it legislated away over time as new generations that grow up believing it is a privelidge that the government can dictate and not a right they should demand.


All of this simply to attempt to stop legal purchases by a very limited few that have not already become disqualified. I would rather be armed myself and have someone be able to obtain a firearm that I have a chance of defending myself or others against than just make an explosive/poison etc and be a suicide bomber I cannot defend against like they already do in parts of the world. At least here they try to go on a shooting spree and can be shot dead if people can defend themselves. There they just go to a crowded place and blow up.

Any knee jerk reaction to deflect attention from your rights by appeasing to the antis by handing over more power to disqualify more harmless potential gun rights supporters will only hurt us all in the end.

What happened was awful. The situation should be dealt with. The media should focus less on "record set in this killing" and coverage thereby encouraging more nutjobs to attempt to break the record themselves or suggesting a violent outlet for thier own emotional issues. Many mass killings such as the one in Australia that got thier guns banned happened right after a mass killing was heavily reported in the UK which resulted in thier gun bans. The guy that did the one in Australia was "inspired" by the heavy coverage of the guy UK event. No doubt some nutcase somewhere is going to be heavily inspired by the days of reporting and referencing the "record number" someplace. The solution is for more people in more places to be capable of stopping people willing to hurt others. Firearms are one of the best forms of defense because they give equal advantage to weak and strong, elderly and young, women and men. Less firearms will not only not stop such madmen, but will tip the scales in favor of the predominantly young men that commit such acts.

There will always be police to smuggle/steal from. Military to smuggle/steal from. Other citizens to steal from. Porous borders were living things cannot even be stopped, nevermind easier to smuggle inanimate objects. Home made weapons. As well as other sources of weapons. I recall just recently a few seperate instances of Law Enforcement storing weapons in vehicles that were stolen. Rewards were being offered that were less than the value of such weapons in the media. Included were such things as MP5s and other hardware most cannot even purchase which are now in the hands of criminals.

So let us not focus on ways to appease antis by disqualifying hundreds of thousands or millions of potential gun owners to stop a few that might slip through the cracks who can still and more commonly are armed elsewhere illegaly, but instead on ways more people can defend against people that do decide to do such things.

Geister
April 19, 2007, 10:56 PM
Just like any court-ordered anti-stalking (i.e. restraining order) is a disqualifier.

Please Hicks, do you have any idea how easy it is to get a restraining order on someone? Would you want a crazy ex to keep you from defending yourself with a firearm?

Too many people on this board keep blaming the guns for what Cho did.

John Hicks
April 20, 2007, 09:53 AM
Um, it's already a red flag in VA if you have a restraining order. This is regardless of how easy they are to get.

I value a court-ordered therapy decision (inpatient or outpatient) as having much more credence than a restraining order. In VA, at least a psychologist has to interview the person first, unlike a restraining order which is he-said/she-said.

Also, for the record, I don't like this, I'm just trying to find a way to fix the system.

Think like a "banner" for a second:
Their first thought is to ban all guns: not going to happen
Second thought is to ban the specific gun: common handgun, not going to happen (however they may try to ban a "feature" like high-cap mags)
Third strategy is to restrict who can buy one: already in place, easy to make changes to.
Fourth would be to start looking at ammo types: unlikely, but it has happened before.



Bottom line is that people will clamor for something to be done that "might" have stopped this from happening. Whether we like it or not, some legislation will be passed. Question is: do you want it focusing on the guns or preventing wackos from buying one?

The "dig in your heels crowd and give no ground" are just setting us up for a big loss in the future. It's an ugly game, politics, but you have to know how to play it. Thankfully in VA, we have VCDL calling the plays.

jh

Bubbles
April 20, 2007, 09:59 AM
Third strategy is to restrict who can buy one: already in place, easy to make changes to.

Given the Parker case, this is the future of the anti-gunners. If they can't ban firearms, they'll work to expand the limits on who can own them. Right now felons, people who have been convicted of DV misdemeanors, and folks adjudicated mentally incompetent are prohibited. After the VT massacre this week obvious expansions include anyone convicted of any misdemeanor, and anyone with a history of depression, PTSD, attempted suicide, etc.

Caimlas
April 20, 2007, 06:29 PM
After the VT massacre this week obvious expansions include anyone convicted of any misdemeanor, and anyone with a history of depression, PTSD, attempted suicide, etc.

Yep, that's what they'll try for, as well as anyone who has ever taken antidepressants. I imagine a significant percentage of the populace would be disallowed from firearm ownership overnight.

What's a "DV misdemeanor"?

If you enjoyed reading about "VT Killer "legally" purchased pistols? Maybe not..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!